linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.19 3/3] x86, mpx: Change the MPX enable/disable API to arch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54AB19EC.4020401@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 05 Jan 2015 15:10:36 -0800
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.19 3/3] x86, mpx: Change the MPX enable/disable API
 to arch_prctl

On 01/05/2015 03:04 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > Yeah, I'd _really_ prefer not to change it.  The code is in a gcc
>> > branch, but is getting pulled in to the 5.0 release.  We've got
>> > *absolutely* no shortage of prctl numbers.
> We do, however, have a severe shortage of sanity in the prctl implementation.
> 
> Anyway, if it's actually a problem to change it, I have no real
> problem keeping it, but I think we *really* need to validate the rest
> of the arguments at the very least.

Do you mean just adding a pair of

	if (arg2 || arg3 || arg4 || arg5)
		return -EINVAL;

checks?

That's perfectly fine with me.  I'm happy to queue up a patch to do just
that if that's what you're going for.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/